A new understanding brokered by US President Donald Trump with Iran is exposing an unusual rift inside his own party, with Republican hawks warning the arrangement falls well short of the sweeping win he once promised and could leave Tehran wealthier, more resilient and still capable of threatening the region.
The memorandum of understanding, signed by Mr Trump in France, is designed to halt months of conflict, reopen the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz and calm energy markets after a war that pushed oil prices higher and stoked fears of a broader Middle East crisis.
Yet the details have unsettled some of the same Republicans who spent years lambasting Democratic former president Barack Obama’s 2015 nuclear accord with Iran as dangerously inadequate.
Those critics say Mr Trump is offering Iran sanctions relief, a path back to oil markets and the prospect of a $300 billion reconstruction fund without locking in hard commitments on uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles or Tehran’s backing of armed proxies.
Republican Senator Bill Cassidy wrote on X that former president and Republican icon Ronald Reagan would be “rolling over in his grave,” branding the understanding “the worst foreign policy blunder in decades”.
“Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive,” he said. “Now, 13 Americans are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be lifted, and the bombing has stopped.”
Mr Trump has argued the agreement is a workable route to reopening one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, through which roughly a fifth of global crude typically flows. He stressed the arrangement is not final and said the United States could restart strikes if the talks collapse.
“It’s a memorandum of understanding, and if I don’t like it, we’ll go back to shooting at them, dropping bombs on their head,” Mr Trump told reporters at a Group of Seven summit in Evian, in eastern France.
‘Threat to America’
At the same time, the president appeared to temper earlier rhetoric, after having called during the war for Iran’s “total surrender” and the dismantling of its nuclear program.
Under the memorandum, Iran is expected to keep the Strait of Hormuz open during a 60-day negotiating period and would receive sanctions waivers that allow it to sell oil while the talks proceed.
The understanding repeats Iran’s promise not to pursue a nuclear weapon, but it does not demand an immediate stop to enrichment or require Tehran to hand over stockpiles of highly enriched uranium.
Republican Senator Ted Cruz urged Mr Trump not to “suddenly come in with massive buckets of cash to let them rebuild and become a threat to America again”.
“I don’t want to see theocratic Islamists who want to kill us made stronger. So, if this deal is giving them $300 billion, that’s a mistake,” he said.
US President Donald Trump has defended the deal as a practical way to reopen one of the world’s most important energy chokepoints
Texas Senator John Cornyn told reporters he worried the deal could amount to little more than “an intermission,” giving Iran time to reconstitute its arsenal while continuing to enrich uranium.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune struck a more measured tone, but said lawmakers still needed clarity on whether the agreement truly grappled with Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles and support for militant groups.
Some other Trump allies, however, called for restraint as negotiations unfold.
Senator Lindsey Graham said the arrangement reopened the Strait of Hormuz, paused the fighting and created an opening to test whether diplomacy could rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“I doubt if they can – on the nuclear program, but why not try?” Mr Graham said, according to The Hill.
Democrats, united in opposition, contend Mr Trump launched an expensive war only to settle on a deal that largely restores the pre-war status quo while granting Tehran added leverage.
Mr Trump, for his part, has hit back at detractors, calling opponents of the agreement “fools” and arguing it offers Washington a way to end the war without drawing the United States deeper into the conflict.
